The assumptions in these redistricting cases are blatantly reductive, racist, and problematic. The underpinning to the reasoning is that "black people want different representatives than white people" and that is blatantly racist.
Also, when one reasons that "black people have a right to have their voice heard in this district" you are si…
The assumptions in these redistricting cases are blatantly reductive, racist, and problematic. The underpinning to the reasoning is that "black people want different representatives than white people" and that is blatantly racist.
Also, when one reasons that "black people have a right to have their voice heard in this district" you are simultaneously concluding that white people will not have a voice for that district, which is also racist. This is a forced conclusion from the premise that if black people do not have a majority their voice will not be heard. They conclude that is bad but somehow force the same result onto white voters. The assumption, which is wrong, in all these cases are that black voters have a different interest in elected officials than white voters. It is going to be hard to keep developing law around these principals when they are blatantly wrong.
The premise behind both of your posts is wrong and that is based on your failure to understand the Voting Rights Act and the Gingles vote dilution test for Section 2 claims. If you actually have an interest in doing more than quoting the one MLK quote conservatives know, I’d start there.
I understand the reasoning behind arguing for skin tone based districts, and I fundamentally disagree. As an immigrant and a minority living in America, a so called "person of color", I have had the same opportunities to succeed in the things I pursue, and engage with the political processes of this nation as much as any other person. I find my convictions being embraced and represented by men and women of many shades. Skin tone has never been empowering or uniting to me. Culture and convictions are.
The reason I chose that quote is because it speaks directly to what is taking place in Alabama. I believe there is an effort taking place to try and make Dr. King's dream a reality. A true effort to get away from race based identity politics and allow character to create unity. Blacks, Hispanics, people of every color can vote, and the fear that used to be associated with voting is now also gone.
The Voting Rights Act was not meant to create a permanent environment where race or skin color trump all else, and are to dictate how districts are formed and policy is crafted.
Don't get me wrong, if there is an actual law that is keeping people from voting or being represented, it should be stuck down. But I guess that is what the argument is all about regarding what is happening in Alabama.
As a personal note, it is patronizing at this point in our nation's history to say that some "races " need the strong "white man" to stand up for them.
All brown and black people do not vote the same way, because we vote based on CHARACTER not COLOR.
So, no, you do not care about the law or the facts, as what you are saying is in no way accurate in its representation of either Alabama, as the record in the case makes clear, or the Voting Rights Act, as the case makes clear.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation.
Just because I don't understand the case the same way you doesn't mean I do not care about the law or the facts. Just an observation, it seems like you find it easy to dismiss ideas/opinions that you don't approve of.
See, again, you're actually proving my point. This isn't about "ideas/opinions." It's about the Voting Rights Act and what every court to look at the matter concluded about Alabama's treatment of the voting rights of Black people in the state. It is *not* about your claimed individual experience, which evidence shows is not the norm. I do urge you to read my Q&A with Abha Khanna to delve much more into this if you wish: https://www.lawdork.com/p/law-dork-qa-with-abha-khanna
I will look at that, thank you. On the personal experience comment, keep in mind that the entire reason a Voting Rights Act was neceesary, along with the ensuing cases, was because of many
Americans' negative personal experience regarding voting rights. Personal experience, although not the ultimate factor, is a factor to consider after all. Whether the courts have taken only one vantage point or many, by which to interpret the Law, does not mean that we as citizens are not at liberty to frame it in a different way, and argue different arguments for or against the law. We can then vote for those that think the way we do.
Chris, you know that as a republic, we are not a society ruled by experts, but by law, order, and the democratic processes that are a part of it, including an informed, thinking, and voting citizenry.
I understand the arguments in favor of Alabamas proposed map may not seem "orthodox" to Manu. But to many others they are orthodox. I love America!
The assumptions in these redistricting cases are blatantly reductive, racist, and problematic. The underpinning to the reasoning is that "black people want different representatives than white people" and that is blatantly racist.
Also, when one reasons that "black people have a right to have their voice heard in this district" you are simultaneously concluding that white people will not have a voice for that district, which is also racist. This is a forced conclusion from the premise that if black people do not have a majority their voice will not be heard. They conclude that is bad but somehow force the same result onto white voters. The assumption, which is wrong, in all these cases are that black voters have a different interest in elected officials than white voters. It is going to be hard to keep developing law around these principals when they are blatantly wrong.
Agreed 👍
The premise behind both of your posts is wrong and that is based on your failure to understand the Voting Rights Act and the Gingles vote dilution test for Section 2 claims. If you actually have an interest in doing more than quoting the one MLK quote conservatives know, I’d start there.
I understand the reasoning behind arguing for skin tone based districts, and I fundamentally disagree. As an immigrant and a minority living in America, a so called "person of color", I have had the same opportunities to succeed in the things I pursue, and engage with the political processes of this nation as much as any other person. I find my convictions being embraced and represented by men and women of many shades. Skin tone has never been empowering or uniting to me. Culture and convictions are.
The reason I chose that quote is because it speaks directly to what is taking place in Alabama. I believe there is an effort taking place to try and make Dr. King's dream a reality. A true effort to get away from race based identity politics and allow character to create unity. Blacks, Hispanics, people of every color can vote, and the fear that used to be associated with voting is now also gone.
The Voting Rights Act was not meant to create a permanent environment where race or skin color trump all else, and are to dictate how districts are formed and policy is crafted.
Don't get me wrong, if there is an actual law that is keeping people from voting or being represented, it should be stuck down. But I guess that is what the argument is all about regarding what is happening in Alabama.
As a personal note, it is patronizing at this point in our nation's history to say that some "races " need the strong "white man" to stand up for them.
All brown and black people do not vote the same way, because we vote based on CHARACTER not COLOR.
So, no, you do not care about the law or the facts, as what you are saying is in no way accurate in its representation of either Alabama, as the record in the case makes clear, or the Voting Rights Act, as the case makes clear.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation.
Just because I don't understand the case the same way you doesn't mean I do not care about the law or the facts. Just an observation, it seems like you find it easy to dismiss ideas/opinions that you don't approve of.
See, again, you're actually proving my point. This isn't about "ideas/opinions." It's about the Voting Rights Act and what every court to look at the matter concluded about Alabama's treatment of the voting rights of Black people in the state. It is *not* about your claimed individual experience, which evidence shows is not the norm. I do urge you to read my Q&A with Abha Khanna to delve much more into this if you wish: https://www.lawdork.com/p/law-dork-qa-with-abha-khanna
I will look at that, thank you. On the personal experience comment, keep in mind that the entire reason a Voting Rights Act was neceesary, along with the ensuing cases, was because of many
Americans' negative personal experience regarding voting rights. Personal experience, although not the ultimate factor, is a factor to consider after all. Whether the courts have taken only one vantage point or many, by which to interpret the Law, does not mean that we as citizens are not at liberty to frame it in a different way, and argue different arguments for or against the law. We can then vote for those that think the way we do.
Chris, you know that as a republic, we are not a society ruled by experts, but by law, order, and the democratic processes that are a part of it, including an informed, thinking, and voting citizenry.
I understand the arguments in favor of Alabamas proposed map may not seem "orthodox" to Manu. But to many others they are orthodox. I love America!